Davis v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 1998 · most notably Roda v. Williams (1965), Flott v. Wenger Mixer Manufacturing Co. (1961)
2 district · 24 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Bright v. Bragg · Sundgren v. Topeka Transportation Co. · Moeser v. Shunk · Elam v. Bruenger · Clifford v. Eacrett
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The act does not attempt in any way to determine the rights or liabilities of the employee in respect to a person not his employer. It does not take away from an employee his common law right of action for injury to the person against one, not his employer, who by negligence has caused the injury. (Moeser v. Shunk, 116 Kan. 247 , 226 Pac. 784 ; and see, 58 Am. Jur., Workmen’s Compensation, § 60, p. 616; and 106 A. L. R. 1040, 1041.) “The language of 44-504, supra, assumes that the liability of a person other than the employer, which exists at common law, continues after the adoption of the act. Thus, a common law action by an injured workman is not affected by the statute, unless the injured workman, who has a right bestowed upon him by the compensation act, brings himself under the statute by asserting a claim for which compensation is payable under the act, or by accepting compensation thereunder, and thereby creating a situation which requires adjustment between the employer and the employee in the event of recovery, (pp. 163, 164.) “We think it fundamental that an injured employee covered by the workmen’s compensation act has a choice as to whether or not he will take compen sation from his employer. Furthermore, in our opinion, it is immaterial whether an employee has elected not to pursue his right to take compensation under the act, or whether he has faded to assert his claim within the time required by the act in ignorance of his right to assert such claim. A third p”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roda v. Williams · Lewis v. Confer
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.